Carson v. Martinez et al

Filing 91

ORDER: (1) Overruling Plaintiff's objections; (2) Adopting Report and Recommendation; and (3) Granting in part and denying in part Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF Nos. 63 , 83 , 87 ). Signed by Judge Janis L. Sammartino on 9/03/2019. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(jpp)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

DAVID VINCENT CARSON,
CDCR #J-19886,

15
16

ORDER: (1) OVERRULING
PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS;
(2) ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION; AND
(3) GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’
MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT

Plaintiff,

13
14

Case No.: 16-CV-1736 JLS (BLM)

v.
F. MARTINEZ, et al.
Defendants.

17
18

(ECF Nos. 63, 83, 87)

19
20

Presently before the Court is Defendants D. Garcia, F. Martinez, and G. Casian’s

21

Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 63). Magistrate Judge Barbara L. Major

22

submitted a Report and Recommendation (“R&R,” ECF No. 83) recommending

23

Defendants’ Motion be Granted in Part and Denied in Part. Plaintiff David Vincent Carson

24

submitted Objections to the R&R (“Objs.,” ECF No. 87), and Defendants submitted a

25

Reply to those Objections (ECF No. 88).

26

BACKGROUND

27

Judge Major’s R&R contains a complete and accurate recitation of the relevant

28

factual and procedural history underlying Plaintiff’s claims and Defendants’ Motion.
1
16-CV-1736 JLS (BLM)

1

See generally R&R. This Order incorporates by reference the background as set forth

2

therein.

3

LEGAL STANDARD

4

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) set forth a district

5

court’s duties in connection with a magistrate judge’s R&R. The district court must “make

6

a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or

7

recommendations to which objection is made,” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in

8

whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28

9

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 673–76 (1980). In

10

the absence of a timely objection, however, the Court “need only satisfy itself that there is

11

no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Fed. R.

12

Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note (citing Campbell v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 501 F.2d 196, 206

13

(9th Cir. 1974)).

14

ANALYSIS

15

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment argues that “(1) Defendant Garcia is

16

‘entitled to summary judgment as to Plaintiff’s failure-to-protect claim because she did

17

not witness or participate in the force incident[,]’ (2) Defendant Martinez is entitled to

18

summary judgment ‘because Plaintiff’s retaliation claim is barred by the favorable

19

determination doctrine[,]’ and (3) Defendant Casian is entitled to summary judgment

20

because ‘Plaintiff’s constant and progressive medical care’ does not demonstrate that she

21

was deliberately indifferent to [Plaintiff’s] medical needs.” R&R at 2 (citing MSJ).

22

Magistrate Judge Major recommends the Court (1) deny Defendants’ Motion as to

23

Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect claim against Defendant Garcia, (2) grant

24

Defendants’ Motion as to Plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claim against Defendant

25

Martinez as it pertains to conduct underlying the Rules Violation Report (“RVR”) prepared

26

by Defendant Martinez, but deny the Motion to the extent the claim is based upon conduct

27

unrelated to the RVR, and (3) grant Defendants’ motion as to Plaintiff’s Eighth

28

Amendment deliberate indifference claim against Defendant Casian. See generally R&R.
2
16-CV-1736 JLS (BLM)

1

The Parties have not objected to Magistrate Judge Major’s R&R as it pertains to the

2

claims against Defendant Martinez and Defendant Garcia. The Court finds the R&R is

3

well reasoned and contains no clear error and therefore ADOPTS the R&R in its entirety

4

as it pertains to these claims.

5

Plaintiff has objected to the R&R as it pertains to the claim against Defendant

6

Casian. First, Plaintiff objects to Magistrate Judge Major’s conclusion that “[e]ven

7

viewing all of the evidence in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, Plaintiff has not

8

presented evidence creating a triable issue of fact as to whether Defendant Casian was

9

deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff’s serious medical needs.” R&R at 26. Plaintiff argues

10

that Magistrate Judge Major misconstrued the evidence it relied on in reaching her

11

conclusion and that the evidence and relevant case law supports his claim that the delay in

12

receiving the medical care he requested creates a triable issue of fact. Objs. at 1–11.

13

Second, Plaintiff objects to Magistrate Judge Major’s conclusion that “there is no

14

evidence to support Plaintiff’s claim that Defendant Casian terminated all of Plaintiff’s

15

accommodation chronos.” R&R at 30. Plaintiff argues that, contrary to Magistrate Judge

16

Major’s findings, the medical records show that Defendant Casian “arbitrarily and

17

capriciously, based on personal animosity, canceled [the medical chronos] before they were

18

set for ‘annual review.’” Objs. at 12.

19

After a de novo review of the R&R’s reasoning, the record evidence, and applicable

20

legal authorities, the Court concludes it must agree with Magistrate Judge Major’s

21

recommendations. With regard to Plaintiff’s claim that Defendant Casian delayed medical

22

treatment, the Court agrees that, at most, the evidence shows a difference of opinion

23

between Plaintiff and Defendant Casian regarding the appropriate medical treatment. See

24

Sanchez v. Vild, 891 F.2d 240, 242 (9th Cir. 1989) (“A difference of opinion does not

25

amount to a deliberate indifference to [plaintiff’s] serious medical needs.”).

26

As for Plaintiff’s claim that Defendant Casian terminated Plaintiff’s chronos, the

27

Court agrees that there is no evidence to support Plaintiff’s claim. See R&R at 30. To the

28

extent Plaintiff argues that Defendant Casian violated his Eighth Amendment rights by
3
16-CV-1736 JLS (BLM)

1

limiting the duration of the lower bunk chronos, the Court finds this argument equally

2

without merit. “[A]t most, it could be considered a difference of opinion between Plaintiff

3

and Defendant Casian as to the appropriate length of the limitation.” Id. at 31 (citing

4

Singleton v. Lopez, 577 F. App’x 733, 735 (9th Cir. 2014)). The Court therefore ADOPTS

5

the R&R as it pertains to these claims.

6

CONCLUSION

7

After reading the R&R and conducting a de novo review of those portions to which

8

Plaintiff objected, the Court must agree with Magistrate Judge Major’s sound reasoning.

9

Accordingly, the Court (1) OVERRULES Plaintiff’s Objections (ECF No. 87),

10

(2) ADOPTS the R&R in its entirety, and (3) GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN

11

PART Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 63). Specifically, the Court

12

(1) DENIES Defendants’ Motion as to Plaintiff’s failure-to-protect claim against

13

Defendant Garcia, (2) GRANTS Defendants’ Motion as to Plaintiff’s First Amendment

14

retaliation claim against Defendant Martinez to the extent it is based upon to conduct

15

underlying the RVR and DENIES the Motion as to Plaintiff’s retaliation claim against

16

Defendant Martinez to the extent it is based upon conduct unrelated to the RVR, and (3)

17

GRANTS Defendants’ Motion as to Plaintiff’s deliberate indifference claim against

18

Defendant Casian.

19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 3, 2019

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
16-CV-1736 JLS (BLM)